Secondly, Indian culture has its completely own taxonomy of magical beasts which is comparable but not identifiable with that of mediterenean or sinosphere (both themselves are not identifiable. Even Fenghuang has nothing to do with fire like phoenix but is just a chimera.) The whole range includes all types of nagas (from serpents to dragons), suparnas (gryffins to angels), etc.

Thirdly, there is no species (obviously mythical) like garuda but he is the king of “suparnas”. And even a cultural english-speaking Indian translates Garuda as gryffin and not phoenix, although its neither. The most exact reference you can get about the qualities of garuda in west is Digimon, because in season 1 there is a garudamon with more or less same as garuda.

Fourthly, the nearest reference to phoenix i could get was India itself. India, historically for its wealth, was known as golden bird (national personification or animalification, like dragon for China or bear for Russia) and especially in many poetries of sultanate era it was mentioned about the golden bird rising from ashes left by raiders, expressing hope for renaissance.

Fifthly, whatsoever it may be, for the purpose of cross-culturalism and entertainment in fiction, the comparision is fantastic.

There is a small problem with this statement. Garuda’s mother (Vinuta – the mother of birds) gambles away her freedom to Kadru – `mother of snakes’ on a trivial matter. After that, with the birth of Garuda – the prince of birds, Garuda seeks to free his mother from slavery, and is asked to get ambrosia, which he does. *Some*, not all, of the `naga’ try to sabotage Garuda. But the `nagas’ – which in this context simply means `snakes’ (the collective version of all snakes of all kinds (perhaps you could say `snake race’?)) are *NOT* symbols of evil. There are tons of `naga’ which are good – in fact, some of the `naga’ are part of the `cosmos maintenance squad’. `Nagini’ is the female version of `naga’, not necessarily a cobra. It can refer to any female snake.
Regards,
Maidros

Let’s take Christianity as a case in point. Are you familiar with the story of La Befana? In the tale, she was invited to join the Magi to bring gifts to the baby Jesus. She refused, but later repented, and went looking for them. She found neither the Magi nor the Child, but to this day goes about giving gifts to every child she meets in the hopes it is the right One.
That’s folklore. As folklore, it simply tells a story about a sort of female Santa Claus. Is it also a story about what Christians believe and value?
La Befana repented of an error–and was punished with eternal exile. This is completely at odds with the Christian belief in repentance and forgiveness.
But the story involves Jesus. So is it a part of the Christian religion?

I think you see what I mean. And my original point was referring to the appearance of the Garuda in countries that are not primarily Hindu. It’s possible that Hinduism took the Garuda from folklore, not that its appearance in non-Hindu countries necessarily stems from religion.

The basic principle that “culture” stems from “cult” (what the people worship) is kind of important to all this. If we’re talking about “religion” as a systematic expression of beliefs and their related rituals, then sure, we could try to parse out exactly where the Garuda story comes from, whether from a folk tale or from Hinduism. But I don’t think it’s easy to draw clear lines like that. Early mythologies and folktales stem from what the people believe and value, which is a religious concept, whether institutionalized or not.

One can very well trace the interconnectedness of culture and religious belief – they’re deeply intertwined (the rise of Marduk as oppose to Tiamat in Sumerian-Babylonian mythology, for example, is directly related to cultural transition from agricultural to military state).

In any case, where are you going with the original point? If “Garuda” is “one of the three principal animal deities in the Hindu Mythology” (see Sanya article), then what is to be gained by suggesting it is otherwise?

It’s all too easy for educated people to make the mistake of supposing that primitive religion and culture are one and the same. It has led to a great deal of condescension in the areas of anthropology and folklore, and sometimes some very egregious errors.